DOJ Aims to Remove Judge Critiquing Trump's Deportation Policies; Lawyer Warns of Looming Constitutional Crisis

• The Justice Department requested that a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C., assign a different district court judge to handle a case contesting the Trump administration’s removal of purported Venezuelan gang members using the wartime Alien Enemies Act.
• The petition, which referenced Chief James Boasberg's purported "misuse of authority," was made during a hearing where Boasberg questioned a senior Department of Justice attorney regarding the details of the deportations carried out over the past weekend.
• The Trump administration announced on Sunday that it had expelled numerous suspected members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador using the seldom-applied, war-time Alien Enemies Act.

The Department of Justice on Monday asked a federal appeals court In Washington, D.C., to take over from the district court judge handling a case that contests the Trump administration's actions. deportations Of numerous purported Venezuelan gang members being transferred to El Salvador under wartime circumstances Alien Enemies Act .

The petition, referencing Chief James Boasberg's purported "misuse of authority," was made during a hearing where Boasberg questioned a high-level Department of Justice attorney regarding the details of deportations carried out over the past weekend.

Earlier on Monday, the DOJ unsuccessfully requested Boasberg to rescind that hearing.

Boasberg issued an oral directive on Saturday instructing the Department of Justice to ensure the return of any individuals who were still onboard planes that departed from within the United States and were destined for deportation.

The DOJ in a court filing claimed that "an oral directive is not enforceable at a directive," and said that it had complied with Boasberg's written order issued hours later blocking any more deportation flights of Venezuelans.

Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli informed Judge Boasberg on Monday that he could not discuss the specifics of the contentious deportation flights in an open court session in Washington D.C.

During the same proceeding, an attorney representing five Venezuelan men who filed a lawsuit against potential deportation addressed Boasberg cautiously, stating, “Over the past few weeks, there’s been considerable discussion regarding a possible constitutional crisis.”

"I think we're getting very close to that," said Gelernt, who argues that two deportation flights took off from the United States after Boasberg's oral order.

It seemed Gelernt was alluding to Kambli's reluctance to respond to the judge's inquiries regarding the flights, as well as to the stance of the Trump administration that deportations under the Alien Enemies Act weren’t bound by court orders once the aircraft had exited U.S. airspace.

"It makes no difference whether you're in U.S. airspace or not," Boasberg stated during Monday’s hearing.

Kambline responded, stating, "Once the planes are airborne and pose a threat to national security," when the judge interrupted him, questioning why the aircraft had not been redirected.

Boasberg suggested that the DOJ's position was "we don't care, we''ll do what we want."

Boasberg questioned whether President Donald Trump possesses "additional" authorities once a plane enters international waters.

"I believe my equitable authorities are quite evident," he added, noting they do not stop at the continental border, according to Boasberg.

He similarly described the DOJ's claim that the airplanes were unable to turn back upon receiving his directive as quite a significant leap.

The judge mentioned that he would provide a written directive later specifying the responses he required from the DOJ by noon on Tuesday, as he noted, “it seems apparent that my verbal instructions do not seem to hold significant sway.”

Boasberg stated that the government should submit a notice in this sequence, potentially including some sealed sections. This document must include:
1) An affirmed statement asserting that as of 7:25 p.m. on March 15, 2025, nobody left the country via air without being exclusively expelled because of the proclamation under scrutiny.
2) A verified statement detailing the signing date, announcement time, and effective start date of the concerned proclamation.
3) The administration’s most accurate projection concerning the count of people still within the nation who fall under the terms set out by the proclamation, along with those presently held by federal authorities.
4) The official stance of the government pertaining to their willingness—and format—to address inquiries from the court about specifics related to these departures.

If the government asserts that it will refrain from providing that information to the court under all conditions, it must substantiate this stance, potentially including the use of classified authorities if needed,

the order said.

On Monday morning, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, opposing Judge Boasberg’s continued involvement in the case. The DOJ argued that he planned to hold a public hearing “to discuss specific logistical aspects concerning deportations involving individuals linked to a designated foreign terror group.”

The escalation resulting from this development raises the stakes due to the district court's improper exertion of authority.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign noted in his filing with the appellate court that jurisdiction involves the dangers of the district court compelling the government to reveal delicate matters related to national security and operational security, or alternatively, imposing substantial sanctions.

"This Court should also immediately reassign this case to another district court judge given the highly unusual and improper procedures — e.g. certification of a class action involving members of a designated foreign terrorist organization in less than 18 hours with no discovery and no briefing from the Government— that have been employed in the district court proceedings to date," Ensign wrote.

The appeals court has yet to rule on Ensign's request.